James Bond is a film series very close to my heart. In an age where critics are accused of being pompous lunatics who are disgusted with everything that did not come out of an art house or a foreign country, I can point to a series like James Bond, Terminator or the latest Marvel comics film and say “This is just a damn good time.”
Pretty boy Daniel Craig and GoldenEye director Martin Campbell, however, seem hell-bent on turning my beloved guilty pleasure into the latest in Hollywood drama. Sporting an apparently darker and far less droll script, Casino Royale represents a reboot for the series, showcasing Bond on his first mission in her Majesty’s secret service.
Those familiar with the series will immediately notice the absence of long-time comedic characters such as the gadget division scientist “R,” played in previous films by John Cleese of Monty Python fame, and the sarcastic secretary Ms. Moneypenny. Both were the film’s more obviously humorous character representations for 20-plus Bond films. This reboot also represents a meshing of icons from past films including Bond’s trademark handgun — the Walther PPK — featured pre-Tomorrow Never Dies. Also returning: Goldfinger’s sleek Aston Martin DB5 and Dame Judi Dench as the speaks-her-mind “M.”
Bond fans have had largely mixed feelings about Craig as Bond, such as the fact that he is blonde and somewhat shorter in stature than previous Bond selections. Though we can accuse Craig of being too this and not enough that, the fact of the matter is that Bond fans of any age have had a difficult time accepting a Bond not played by Sean Connery.
No one will ever be that Bond again. The last two Bond films have allowed me to make my peace with Brosnan, who at least is infinitely preferable to the painfully average performance of his predecessor, Timothy Dalton.
In the end, we can not really judge Craig as Bond until we actually see the film for ourselves. Physical appearances aside, if he can do the job, he can do the job, that is all I care about.
But what does it mean to make a Bond film a more serious character drama and study?
Even though there seems to be plenty of the requisite explosions, exotic locales and feisty femme fatales, Campbell appears to be making a gamble to realize James Bond as not just an agent of the Queen or the fulfiller of our deepest chaotic desires, but as just a man.
This was attempted in ’69, with the one-shot Bond actor George Lazenby in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, where Bond actually marries the film’s often expendable love interest, only to watch her gunned down by SPECTRE leader Blofeld. Bond, clutching her bullet-ridden body, bursts into tears. Fans and film buffs continue to argue the logistics of making Bond a human being who can experience love, pain and loss. Ultimately, no one knows what could come of it if only the right combination of acting and story were found.
It is going to be a matter for each and every moviegoer to decide. As for myself, I am cautiously optimistic when one of my most beloved film series decides to adapt itself to modern movie culture. But I guarantee you, if Daniel Craig can show his distinction in this role, it will be a joyous birth of quality filmmaking and a rain-soaked funeral for a series that offered up such simple pleasures in this ever-changing world.
